[WikiEN-l] Adam acting the ass again *sigh* (and he is only just back)

[james duffy]

I'm afraid Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] is acting the ass again in exactly the same way as 
he did before. He new stunt was to try to edit the [[Talk:List of 
heterosexuals/delete (final archive)]] page.

For people who may not know, to preserve long debates that used to be moved 
to talk pages from the VfD but which then ended up deleted if the article 
and talk page were both deleted, and to avoid the problem of inconclusive 
delete debates on talk pages, where the debate got sidetracked as debates on 
deletion and on the article blurred together, a recent innovation is now 
being used by increasing numbers. A special /delete page is created and 
attached to the talk page. A set of rules are followed:

1. /All/ the delete debate is focused there, not on the talk page.

2. A strict timetable is followed. The article is created on 'x'. A decision 
is taken on 'x + 7' meaning that debates no longer meander on for ever but 
are decided at the end of a week.

3. The /delete page is kept, even if the article and talk page isn't, and 
preserved on a page linked to the VfD page, meaning that we will now have a 
back archive of these debates for people researching the history of wiki to 
review.

4. Once the page being debated is deleted, the debate ends, the page ceases 
to be 'live' and becomes a record of the debate that decided the issue.

Everyone has been following this. All debates have ended when a decision was 
taken. But Adam, in one of his tantrum-throwing spoiled child moods, decided 
as so often in the past that he wants to be above the rules. The vote on 
that page ran from 31 August to 8 September. 70%+ voted to delete the 
article. It was deleted, then the /delete page closed, archived and linked 
to the [[Archived delete debates]] on the VfD page. Adam however doctored 
the archive page to add in his vote and comments, weeks after the page was 
closed. I reverted back the archive version that has been sitting there 
untouched for weeks. Adam again doctored the page. Ed Poor protected it but 
inadvertently preserved the wrong version. I corrected to the archive 
version that everyone had originally signed off on and left the protection.

Adam is now going ballistic, throwing accusations of censorship and 
bizarrely demanding the right to vote in a vote that finished on 8th 
September as to whether to delete a page that was deleted on the 8th of 
September. It is so bizarre it is like an episode of Fawlty Towers. He is 
alone complaining on the [[Problem Users]] page, where no-one has supported 
him and he has been attacked for his behaviour by RickK, Angela, and Cyan. 
(I also commented.)

However, all past experience of Adam is that he starts off like that and 
keeps at it, childishly setting off edit wars the way some children set off 
fire alarms. We all expected that /this/ time he would stop acting the ass 
and grow up. It doesn't say much for the future when within days of 
returning he is acting /exactly/ as he did as Lir, as Vera, as Susan Mason, 
as Dietary Fiber, as Pizza Puzzle, etc.

This behaviour has got to be nipped in the bud immediately or we are going 
to have weeks if not months of it, as he plays his little games. I was one 
of the first to say Adam should be allowed back, but that was only if he 
behaved himself.

IMHO Jimbo, he needs to be told clearly, unambiguously and explicitly - STOP 
THIS NOW. Any more antics like that, any more returning to the spoiled child 
antics and you will be banned immediately, permanently and for life. No more 
warnings. You are back because people, even after all they put up with 
before, agreed to give you /one/ more chance. But even the slightest whiff 
of your old foot-stomping 'I want my way' screwing around with articles and 
you are gone for good.

That /has/ to explicitly spelt out to him now, not one week or one month 
later when he has done it 5, 10 or 20 times elsewhere. Wiki doesn't need to 
have to put up with Adam acting the ass again if that is his game plan. And 
his behaviour on this one article tonight suggests that he has every 
intention of acting as before and thinking he can get away with it. He needs 
to know, bluntly and directly, that he cannot, ever again.

And for the record, I don't want Adam banned. But he has to stop acting like 
a spoiled 9 year old throwing tantrums and seeing how many fights he can 
start. Adam has shown for long enough that 'softly softly' doesn't work with 
him. The rules have to spelt out to him unambiguously and forceably.

JT

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail